The real 1st John 5:7

[John Reece]

The word John emphasizes is God's name.

What word emphasized by John is God's name?

But there are several words/wordages in the greek language.

Quite an understatement that; but so what?

[Omniskeptical]

The father['s] name is one specific Logos in John's gospel. And it is the son in 1 John 1. But they are different Logoi.

[Omniskeptical]

What word emphasized by John is God's name?

John hints at [what] word; which is YHWH.

Quite an understatement that; but so what?

[Omniskeptical]

It seems I have found some interesting. There is an old 1859 printed version of the greek new testament by J N Jager which has exactly the same [version of the] verse, and it would seem based on Schrivener's research that 193 manuscripts don't have the textus receptus version of the verse which he was looking for. I think there is ample evidence to think Schrivener was sloppy and didn't know everything.

[RonC]

A general breakdown of versions

ο πατηρ και ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (Complutensian Polyglot)
ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (average Textus Receptus)
πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον (the original greek)(see also Von Soden's apparatus)

Hi OmniS!

Please cite a chapter and verse from the Epistles of John in which a definitive article does not accompany the term πατήρ as is the case in what you term (the original greek)

Thank you.
RonC

[Omniskeptical]

2Jn_1:3 ἔσται Shall Be G2071 V-FXI-3S μεθ' With G3326 PREP ἡμῶν Us G2257 P-1GP χάρις Grace, G5485 N-NSF ἔλεος Mercy, G1656 N-NSM εἰρήνη Peace, G1515 N-NSF παρὰ From G3844 PREP θεοῦ God The G2316 N-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM καὶ And G2532 CONJ παρὰ From The G3844 PREP Κυρίου Lord G2962 N-GSM Ἰησοῦ Jesus G2424 N-GSM Χριστοῦ Christ, G5547 N-GSM τοῦ The G3588 T-GSM υἱοῦ Son G5207 N-GSM τοῦ Of The G3588 T-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM ἐν In G1722 PREP ἀληθείᾳ Truth G225 N-DSF καὶ And G2532 CONJ ἀγάπῃ Love. G26 N-DSF

This is the second time where John in an epistle uses the greek "definite" article before the greek cognate of father, actually pronounced fathrush though spelled πατρος. This info would have little to do with syntax though, since it doesn't tell you anything if you can't decipher what you are reading. Even saying that John deemphasizes who the father is with the article doesn't guarantee someone will not make a copying mistake based on John's habits. That question was more interesting than I thought.

[RonC]

2Jn_1:3 ἔσται Shall Be G2071 V-FXI-3S μεθ' With G3326 PREP ἡμῶν Us G2257 P-1GP χάρις Grace, G5485 N-NSF ἔλεος Mercy, G1656 N-NSM εἰρήνη Peace, G1515 N-NSF παρὰ From G3844 PREP θεοῦ God The G2316 N-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM καὶ And G2532 CONJ παρὰ From The G3844 PREP Κυρίου Lord G2962 N-GSM Ἰησοῦ Jesus G2424 N-GSM Χριστοῦ Christ, G5547 N-GSM τοῦ The G3588 T-GSM υἱοῦ Son G5207 N-GSM τοῦ Of The G3588 T-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM ἐν In G1722 PREP ἀληθείᾳ Truth G225 N-DSF καὶ And G2532 CONJ ἀγάπῃ Love. G26 N-DSF

This is the second time where John in an epistle uses the greek "definite" article before the greek cognate of father, actually pronounced fathrush though spelled πατρος. This info would have little to do with syntax though, since it doesn't tell you anything if you can't decipher what you are reading. Even saying that John deemphasizes who the father is with the article doesn't guarantee someone will not make a copying mistake based on John's habits. That question was more interesting than I thought.

Thank you... I appreciate your response but hope for clarification. When you say that this is "the second time where John in an epistle uses the greek "definite" article before the greek cognate of father...are you referring to "τοῦ Of The G3588 T-GSM πατρός Father, G3962 N-GSM"?

Best,
RonC

[Omniskeptical]

I mean the second time where John doesn't use the "definite" article before "pater". I tried to jam to many facts into that post. But there is also where John uses the article to obscure at the end of the verse.

[RonC]

I mean the second time where John doesn't use the "definite" article before "pater". I tried to jam to many facts into that post. But there is also where John uses the article to obscure at the end of the verse.

I too used to be guilty of jamming too much into a single post... given my limitations now I keep things simple and address issues/question in baby-bites!

In this case, can you cite the other verse in Epistles of John which you are referring to which you say is "the second time where John doesn't use the "definite" article before "pater".

Have a joyous Easter!

Best,
RonC

[Omniskeptical]

I already did. The first time is 1 John 5:7. And the second is 2 John 1:3.

[RonC]

I already did. The first time is 1 John 5:7. And the second is 2 John 1:3.

Thank you for clarifying... but it is a bit problematic to use one's contention as to what the original Greek was to support one's conclusion as to what the Greek should be altered to read...

There is no instance in the Epistles of John which one can cite where John uses use the term "pater" without a "definite" article... The contention that the noun phrase θεοῦ πατρός (apposition of a type if you prefer) somehow supports the grammatical contention regarding the singular noun "pater" in this offered version of the "original Greek" does not stand up to scrutiny. The noun phrase structure has its own specific protocols and precepts...

It is hard to assert that in one instance (and one open to question) and only one instance in the entirety of the epistles the writer makes a change such as this... the standards for proving an anomaly such as this are rather stringent as they should be.

Best,
RonC

[Omniskeptical]

Thank you for clarifying... but it is a bit problematic to use one's contention as to what the original Greek was to support one's conclusion as to what the Greek should be altered to read...

There is no instance in the Epistles of John which one can cite where John uses use the term "pater" without a "definite" article... The contention that the noun phrase θεοῦ πατρός (apposition of a type if you prefer) somehow supports the grammatical contention regarding the singular noun "pater" in this offered version of the "original Greek" does not stand up to scrutiny. The noun phrase structure has its own specific protocols and precepts...

It is hard to assert that in one instance (and one open to question) and only one instance in the entirety of the epistles the writer makes a change such as this... the standards for proving an anomaly such as this are rather stringent as they should be.

Best,
RonC

But it is irrelevent how many times John uses πατρος without the article in textual criticism. More facsimiles need to be checked.

[RonC]

But it is irrelevent how many times John uses πατρος without the article in textual criticism. More facsimiles need to be checked.

Hi OmniS!

"irrelevant" is hyperbole I think... however you are correct that more evidence needs to examined... in that regard, my next question would be to cite examples (examples that of course are relevant to this verse) from other writings of verses in which the author uses use the singular term "pater" without a "definite" article. What exactly would you cite in that regard?

Best,
RonC

[Omniskeptical]

Hi OmniS!

"irrelevant" is hyperbole I think... however you are correct that more evidence needs to examined... in that regard, my next question would be to cite examples (examples that of course are relevant to this verse) from other writings of verses in which the author uses use the singular term "pater" without a "definite" article. What exactly would you cite in that regard?

Best,
RonC

Irrelevant is not a hyperbole, especially if the facsimiles were to say otherwise. And citing facsimiles would be unnecessary if von Soden hadn't screwed up. Even on Acts 8:37, quoted by the church fathers; he fails to include it because of his precious belief in trinity dogmas.